Pages: 1

I found something contrary !

(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)

Posted by: Frederik

Can somebody please tell me how this fits together ? Every gospel says something contrary. In Matthew they both mock him and in Luke only 1 of them mocks Jesus ! This are the little parts in the bible which do not really strenghten my faith...
How can I trust the bible when it doesn't even fit together ?
It's clear that there are only 2 other men cruxified next to Jesus cause it says " One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him" and then it says " But the other criminal rebuked him." This shows that it were only 2 others. There is no way to explain this, it's a mistake.
If God inspired the writers of the gospel then how can they make such a mistake ? The bible is all I have from God, he has never spoken to me, so how can I be faithful when the bible aka God's word contains contraries ??? Somebody who knows Jesus and feels his annointing all the time won't care much about these little things, but I do. I want to be able to rely on the bible 100% but how can I do that when I can easily find contradictions ? God's word cannot be wrong, that means either the bible is not God's word or God doesn't exist. This are the 2 options. When there's only one tiny mistake in the whole bible then this mistake makes everything questionable, this is what I think.
The holy,infallible word of God is degraded to an erroneous report of an eye witness. Am I the only one who sees the far-reaching consequences of this ???




Matthew 27;44

In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.


Luke 23; 39-43

One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."


Posted by: jedijeb

Well I don't know exactly what went on there but maybe both mocked Jesus at first then one realized just who He was. Just a thought.


Posted by: archiesmiley

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederik
Can somebody please tell me how this fits together ? Every gospel says something contrary. In Matthew they both mock him and in Luke only 1 of them mocks Jesus ! This are the little parts in the bible which do not really strenghten my faith...
How can I trust the bible when it doesn't even fit together ?
It's clear that there are only 2 other men cruxified next to Jesus cause it says " One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him" and then it says " But the other criminal rebuked him." This shows that it were only 2 others. There is no way to explain this, it's a mistake.
If God inspired the writers of the gospel then how can they make such a mistake ? The bible is all I have from God, he has never spoken to me, so how can I be faithful when the bible aka God's word contains contraries ??? Somebody who knows Jesus and feels his annointing all the time won't care much about these little things, but I do. I want to be able to rely on the bible 100% but how can I do that when I can easily find contradictions ? God's word cannot be wrong, that means either the bible is not God's word or God doesn't exist. This are the 2 options. When there's only one tiny mistake in the whole bible then this mistake makes everything questionable, this is what I think.
The holy,infallible word of God is degraded to an erroneous report of an eye witness. Am I the only one who sees the far-reaching consequences of this ???




Matthew 27;44

In the same way the robbers who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.


Luke 23; 39-43

One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."


I can't answer your question, Frederik. Sorry. I just don't know.

But I DO find it interesting that you've quoted the NIV.

Wasn't it you who was carrying on about the NIV and other "Modern" translations of the Bible being of Satan???

Fascinating... and for the record, the KJV has the same inconsistancy.

Here, though, is a possibility:

Ask any three eyewitnesses to a crime... let's say a "Hit-and-run" car accident... what color the vehicle was. If the vehicle was a dark color you will probably get three different colors out of the witnesses. Dark green, black and dark blue. Ask any Policeman if that isn't true.

In the Gospels we have four different accounts of the crucifixion. Jesus was their friend and he was being executed for crimes He didn't commit.

In that sort of emotional turmoil, is it any surprise that perhaps Matthew saw one of the thieves mocking Jesus and just assumed both were? Especially if he wasn't running around at his friends execution taking notes?

My advice... Ask Jesus when you see Him. Just make good and sure that when the time comes... you DO see Him.

Love you my friend.
~Arch


Posted by: Frederik

My latest infos are, that the translation is not accurate. In the greek version it says in Matthew duo lestai, which means 2 robbers, but in Luke it says duo kakourgoi [2 criminals] and this is supposed to show that these are 2 different men cause not every criminal is also a robber.
The bottom line is that actually 4 men are supposed to have been crucified with Jesus. By the way, this has nothing to do with the bible version cause in my textus receptus bible it says the same.


Posted by: Frederik

Your translations and not accurate, I just looked at the german versions and only 1 german bible translates it correctly and says that 2 men were crucified on BOTH sides of Jesus !

KJV Matthew 19;18

Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

NKJV

18where they crucified Him, and two others with Him, one on either side, and Jesus in the center.


This is not accurate.


Posted by: archiesmiley

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederik
Your translations and not accurate, I just looked at the german versions and only 1 german bible translates it correctly and says that 2 men were crucified on BOTH sides of Jesus !

KJV Matthew 19;18

Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.

NKJV

18where they crucified Him, and two others with Him, one on either side, and Jesus in the center.


This is not accurate.


That's nice, Frederik. I won't argue with you. I don't have any German Bibles and you're just looking for an argument.

Have a blessed day, it's about my bedtime.


Posted by: JG

It is John 19:18 not Matthew
JOH 19:18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
243 allos, al'-los; a prim. word; "else," i.e. different one (another), other, otherwise


The definitions of allos and heteros are contrived. If you take ten minutes with a Greek concordance looking at these words, it is obvious that they don't work in all the occurrences in the NT.

Narrow definitions of words sometimes were true of Attic Greek, but the Koine Greek of the NT is common Greek, in which the meanings of many words are defused.

To hang an interpretation of John 19:18 on two words that are (and must be) translated with several English words is foolish and not true to the Bible text. If you don't have access to a Greek concordance, I can send you a copy of the allos and heteros pages. Even a brief look at a Greek concordance destroys most of the unique word definitions used above

Actually, all of his meanings for these words are false. Although he said that "Allos is used when more than two may be involved ," the Gospels also use allos to refer to turning the other cheek (Mat. 5:39), a cripple's other hand (Mat. 12:13) and the other disciple (John) who went into the tomb with Peter (John 20:8).

Perhaps Jesus healed a three-cheeked, four-handed cripple? They also wrote that "heteros is used because only two categories are involved." But the Gospels use heteros to refer to another psalm, place, king, man, servant, hearer, believer, wife, day, tribe, etc, etc. Are there only two categories of these things? (Many Wayers/ex-Wayers don't even seem to realize that allos and heteros are translated "another," almost as often as "other.)

It's true that heteros suggests a difference in type more often than allos. However, the words are usually interchangeable, and the choice of word depends more on who the writer is than on its use. John's Gospel and Revelation use allos about 50 times, but use heteros only once.

Mark uses allos about 23 times, but uses heteros only once. Luke is just the opposite, using heteros about 50 times in Luke and Acts, but using allos only 16 times. Therefore, the careful student of language would be surprised if Luke didn't use heteros to describe a criminal, or if John didn't use allos.

At times Luke quotes the same words of Jesus which other Gospels do, but Luke uses heteros where the others use allos.

For instance, in the parable of the sower, Matthew 13 and Mark 4 use only allos to refer to the seed, while Luke 8 (which uses mostly the same terms throughout) uses only heteros. When Matthew 19 and Mark 10 quote Jesus' censure of a man who divorces one woman and marries another, they use allos while Luke uses heteros. Matthew 21 and Mark 12 quote Jesus' parable about an owner who sends an allos servant, while Luke 20 states he sent an heteros servant. Paul interchanges the words also, using allos six times and heteros twice in his list of manifestations "other" believers use (see also Hebrews 11:35-36).

The Gospel writers would not interchange allos and heteros if there were radically different, inflexible definitions as Wierwille claims. In addition, TWI's Aramaic Interlinear again contradicts TWI's teaching on "other," because it uses the same Aramaic word for "other" in both John 19:18 and Luke 23:32.

They also ignores singular nouns. They quotes John 19:32, saying soldiers broke the legs "of the other which was crucified with him." But if there were four men, John would have written, "of one of the others who were crucified with him." In summary, The Way's "precise" definitions are bogus, and to rest the teaching of two more imaginary criminals on them lacks logic.

It is peculiar that they tried to use "malefactor" and "robber" to try to prove they were two different sets of people. If he was consistent in applying this principle, then there would have to be two Barabbases, as John 18:40 terms him a "robber" while Luke 23:19 and Mark 15:7 call him an insurrectionist and murderer.

If Paul is called a "believer" in one place, and an "apostle" in another, is this proof there are two different Pauls? Even today, a single news article can use several different terms (thief, criminal, fellow, etc) to refer to the same person. While they admit that "A malefactor is an evil-doer," they stubbornly insists they must be different anyway. A robber is certainly one kind of criminal, and the Gospels use both terms to refer to the same men.

Most of the "discrepancies" are contrived by the "Joe Friday" approach. One, I think, is more significant-- in one Gospel, two criminals revile Jesus, in another, one doesn't. The reason it appears to be a discrepancy is because we can't readily picture a criminal making such a dramatic change in behavior in six hours' time, with one Gospel recording his attitude at the start of the crucifixion and the other noting his attitude at the end. If it is "impossible" to change so quickly, then it "must have been" two different people.

Yet, changes of heart are a normal thing with people who confront Jesus Christ. The centurion professes "this was the Son of God," and spectators beat their breasts and went away at the end. The Gospel doesn't note his skepticism about Jesus at the start of the crucifixion (just as one Gospel doesn't record the criminal's ridicule) because it is assumed by any Jewish reader that criminals and Roman centurion's are sinful and unbelieving.

It took only two minutes with Jesus for Nathaniel to change from an indirect insult ("can any good thing come out of Nazareth?") to awed belief ("Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are the King of Israel") and for Saul to turn from persecutor to believer. The criminal observed Christ for six hours, experienced miraculous events (darkness at noon), and the anger, hate, fear of death, and sorrow that comes with facing a torturous death in a few hours. And perhaps Christ said other things to others and to the criminal which were not recorded. In view of Jesus' ministry, a criminal's change of heart is hardly surprising. In fact, the very reason the centurion's and criminal's statements of belief were included in the Gospels is because they were testimonies to Christ's amazing power.

Another peculiar thing: anyone who read Matthew, Mark, or Luke (and even John) by itself would have to come to the conclusion that only two men were crucified with Jesus.

(John wasn't even written until 40-50 years after the other Gospels, and before the printing press few people probably had all four Gospels in hand so couldn't compare them all in log fashion.)

None of the writers ever uses the word "four" and
none of them ever mentions two criminals led to Golgatha and
then two more led there at a later time in the same Gospel.

The only conclusion they (especially someone like Theophilus who was reading it as his sole report) could ever come to is erroneous (in the Joe Friday view)-- that two were crucified with Jesus. Could the writers write the Gospels in such a way as to mislead the readers so? Or were they all describing the same simple fact-- that two were crucified with Jesus?

Why would the "artist" paint a picture of men crucified with Christ? To show the fulfillment of Isaiah 53, that he was numbered with the transgressors. You need only two to fulfill it.

Many of these insights apply just as well to Way ideas like "Peter's six denials"-- "artist" versus police log style, adding words not in the Gospels, Aramaic support, inaccurate definitions of Greek words, presumed events that are not mentioned in the Bible text, inability to see this in a single Gospel taken by itself, and the like. These other unique Way teachings are not found in the Bible itself, but are imposed by the imagination of "the Teacher."


Posted by: Frederik

Well, I didn't understand much of what you said, but you say that there were only 2 men crucified with Jesus. My bible also never uses the word four, but it says that Jesus was crucified with 2 men on his both sides.
I find this very confusing.

But imagining that this man first of all mocked Jesus and then he asks this other guy wether he doesn't fear God is also hard. I mean he mocks Jesus too and later he defends him, this seems a bit hypocritical.


Posted by: jedijeb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederik
Well, I didn't understand much of what you said, but you say that there were only 2 men crucified with Jesus. My bible also never uses the word four, but it says that Jesus was crucified with 2 men on his both sides.
I find this very confusing.

But imagining that this man first of all mocked Jesus and then he asks this other guy wether he doesn't fear God is also hard. I mean he mocks Jesus too and later he defends him, this seems a bit hypocritical.

It would be hypocritical of he remained lost or was always saved, but if salvation took place in his heart during that time, then the change would be normal. As Jerry said many people have trouble believing in the instant change in people, but I have seen it first hand. With God all things are possible and this just shows how much change should be expected in someone's life when salvation comes. Night and day, old creature new creature. For some it takes time but others it is immediate. It really isn't a contridiction it just shows the awesome power of Jesus upon someone's life.


Posted by: JG

None of the writers used the word four.
None of the early church father used the word four
None of the historians used the word four men

None of the rest of the bible used or infered the word four.

They also ignores singular nouns. They quotes John 19:32, saying soldiers broke the legs "of the other which was crucified with him." But if there were four men, John would have written, "of one of the others who were crucified with him." In summary, The Way's "precise" definitions are bogus, and to rest the teaching of two more imaginary criminals on them lacks logic.

It is peculiar that they tried to use "malefactor" and "robber" to try to prove they were two different sets of people. If he was consistent in applying this principle, then there would have to be two Barabbases, as John 18:40 terms him a "robber" while Luke 23:19 and Mark 15:7 call him an insurrectionist and murderer.

Study my friend study.
This is fun
Jerry


Posted by: ANOINTED WARRIOR

deleted by jerry


Posted by: talena

Jerry is correct Frederik.

It's kind of like this: If someone were to post the following,

"Frederik has questions about the Bible."

and then write later:

"The german has questions about the Bible."

It sounds as though there may be 2 different people questioning the Bible, when in fact we are simply talking about our wonderful token Frederik, the same person.

Maybe that puts things into a little more perspective for you.


Posted by: Frederik

Jerry,
but doesn't the greek bible say "enteuthen" and this means on both sides, two sinners on both sides and Jesus in the middle.


Posted by: talena

Actually it says "entheuthen kai enteuthen"

which literally translates into "on one side AND the other" Kai means AND in greek.

I want to quote Jerry and to try to explain something else for you Frederik...

"Actually, all of his meanings for these words are false. Although he said that "Allos is used when more than two may be involved ," the Gospels also use allos to refer to turning the other cheek (Mat. 5:39), a cripple's other hand (Mat. 12:13) and the other disciple (John) who went into the tomb with Peter (John 20:8). " JERRY

The greek "allos" IS used when someone/something else is involved, but it usually refers to the 2nd of the two.

I want to break down the scripture you are questioning: John 19:18
"hopou (where) satauroo (they crucified) autos (him), kai (and) duo (two) allos (other) meta (with) autos (him), entheuthen kai entheuthen (on one side and the other) de lesous (with Jesus) mesos (in the midst).

There in the original greek you can clearly see that there were only two crucified with Jesus. They even set the scene for you: on one side and the other with Jesus in the middle.


Posted by: Frederik

Others is not specific, it can mean 2 or even more.

They quotes John 19:32, saying soldiers broke the legs "of the other which was crucified with him."

The other ? This would imply that only 1 sinner was crucified with him, this cannot be.


Posted by: talena

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frederik
Others is not specific, it can mean 2 or even more.

They quotes John 19:32, saying soldiers broke the legs "of the other which was crucified with him."

The other ? This would imply that only 1 sinner was crucified with him, this cannot be.


Again that word "allos" is referring to the second of the two.

It is like me saying I had an apple and I gave you the other. It does not mean I gave you the only apple that I had, just that I had 2 and you got the 2nd one.

It was the legs of the 2nd sinner that was broken, not the first one.


Posted by: Theophilus

Quote:
Originally Posted by archiesmiley
I can't answer your question, Frederik. Sorry. I just don't know.

But I DO find it interesting that you've quoted the NIV.

Wasn't it you who was carrying on about the NIV and other "Modern" translations of the Bible being of Satan???

Fascinating... and for the record, the KJV has the same inconsistancy.

Here, though, is a possibility:

Ask any three eyewitnesses to a crime... let's say a "Hit-and-run" car accident... what color the vehicle was. If the vehicle was a dark color you will probably get three different colors out of the witnesses. Dark green, black and dark blue. Ask any Policeman if that isn't true.

In the Gospels we have four different accounts of the crucifixion. Jesus was their friend and he was being executed for crimes He didn't commit.

In that sort of emotional turmoil, is it any surprise that perhaps Matthew saw one of the thieves mocking Jesus and just assumed both were? Especially if he wasn't running around at his friends execution taking notes?

My advice... Ask Jesus when you see Him. Just make good and sure that when the time comes... you DO see Him.

Love you my friend.
~Arch


first of all i would like to remind you that the Bible didn't fall out of heaven on a parachute nor did he work out of a vacuum. God used the previous knowledge and personality of the Biblical authors. it is God inspired and wholly trustworthy.
secondly, when dealing with the Scriptures, it is best to use the original languages, such as Hebrew, Aramaic, and, in this case, Greek. the Greek may in fact clear up the problem. (the language might not necesarily suggest only two other criminals. we know a lot more about Koine Greek now than we did 10 years ago and we're still learning.)
if not, remember that the Gospels were written from different points of view and each had a different emphasis. Matthew emphasised the Messiah, Mark emphasised the Suffering Servant, Luke salvation for all. once, a man by the name of Tacion attempted to weave the Gospels toghether to create one Gospel but it was rejected. it lost a lot. it served Luke's purpose to mention the rependtant sinner. that doesn't mean its any more or less true. John 21:25 says "Jesus did many other things as well. If everyone of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written."
also remember, there is more in favor of the historical accuracy or the Bible and the truth of God's existence than there is agaisnt it. people tend to forget there were checks and balances to ensure the accuracy of the Gospels, such as surviving witnesses, written records (it was not uncommon for a famous Rabbi's teaching to be recorded on the spot), and small cultural tidbits that would not otherwise turn up. (for example, the number of Hebraeisms and Aramisms: Son of God, Son of Man, Talitha Coum, Eloi Eloi lama sabachthani, and Amen before an important teaching [in English it is translated as "Truly"]. these were foreign to Greek culture.)
i don't know all the answers. but one little problem such as this does not equal rejection of the whole. The Bible is trustworthy.
Love in Christ,
theophilus


Posted by: American

WORD (that was JESUS not scripture), who teaches you all things scripture or the HOLY SPIRIT. HE who wrote it:
I Jn 2:27
27 And as for you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you; concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him. (ASV)

John 14:26
26 But the Comforter, (even) the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you. (ASV)

does faith come by memorizing scripture or hearing God?:
Rom 10:17
17 So belief (cometh) of hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. (ASV)

American
by the way there are many misteakes in scripture, but the Holy Spirit has never made a misteake.


Posted by: MamaCat

Quote:
Originally Posted by American
American
by the way there are many misteakes in scripture, but the Holy Spirit has never made a misteake.


There are NO mistakes in Scripture since it is written by the Holy Spirit!